Gov’t didn’t shut down cell networks in Boston—but it could have

Feds won’t reveal secret process for shutting off cell service.

The Associated Press got egg on its face Monday when it admitted it had mistakenly reported that cellular networks in Boston had been shut down to prevent them from being used to remotely detonate explosives. Spokespeople from multiple wireless carriers have told reporters that there were no government requests to deactivate their networks in Boston.

But while the rumors turned out to be false, the idea wasn't crazy. Federal law enforcement officials do have a process for ordering the deactivation of cell phone service in particular neighborhoods or across entire metropolitan areas. And the details of that process are a closely guarded secret.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has formally challenged the secrecy of that process. Last year EPIC filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of the secret rule known as Standard Operating Procedure 303. When the Department of Homeland Security claimed not to have any records of the rule, EPIC sued to compel the release of the documents.

The government can't plausibly claim that no document related to shutting down cell phone service exists. A 2007 government report states that the policy was formally adopted in March 2006. According to the report, an entity called the National Coordinating Center will "function as the focal point for coordinating any actions leading up to and following the termination of private wireless network connections, both within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area."

"The decision to shut down service will be made by State Homeland Security Advisors, their designees, or representatives of the DHS Homeland Security Operations Center," the report said. "Once the request has been made by these entities, the NCC will operate as an authenticating body, notifying the carriers in the affected area of the decision."

“Mubarak did it to put down the protests”

Discussion of SOP 303 flared up after Bay Area Rapid Transit shut down service near some BART stations in anticipation of an August 2011 protest against the BART police. The move caught the attention of the Federal Communications Commission, which launched an investigation last year.

Critics point to the BART shutdown as an example of the dangers of the government having unilateral power to shut down cellular networks. They say the shutdown was less about public safety than about making it more difficult for protestors to organize anti-BART demonstrations.

"That's the kind of stuff that happens in places like Egypt, where Mubarak did it to put down the protests, and Tunisia, where the dictator did it to put down protests," one anti-BART protestor told us in 2011.

Major wireless carriers told the FCC that no inquiry was needed because the criteria for shutting down wireless networks had already been hashed out.

"Federal and State authorities, the [FCC], wireless providers and other private stakeholders, have previously considered these issues in a cooperative process that resulted in the National Communications System’s Standard Operating Procedure 303," AT&T argued in a filing for the FCC's BART proceeding. "SOP 303 resolves the questions posed by the Commission in the Notice and eliminates the need for the Commission to reconsider those issues in this docket."

AT&T didn't specify which "private stakeholders" were consulted during the drafting of SOP 303, but public interest groups such as EPIC were apparently not invited. The FCC inquiry over the BART cell phone shutdown is still open.

Amie Stepanovich, the EPIC lawyer who is leading the fight to open SOP 303, told Ars that the secrecy of the SOP 303 process was unacceptable. "Whenever you have procedures that are secret, there is this question of transparency and accountability," she said in a phone interview today. She believes it's wrong for the public to be left in the dark about when the network might be shut off, for how long, and who would be affected.

The legal fight to release documents connected to SOP 303 is ongoing. Stepanovich told us that DHS has walked back its initial claim that there are no documents about the policy. It is due to respond to EPIC's lawsuit soon. After that, the courts may set a deadline for DHS to release the documents or justify their secrecy.

The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to our request for comment about the lawsuit.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to. Also keep in mind that as long as there is a "switch" somewhere to shut everything down, than means hackers could get to it too. I would much rather our infrastructure be designed to never be shut down as a whole.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

So, someone calls in a cell-triggered bomb threat over here, thus summoning a large percentage of the local authorities and first responders. They then go over there and perform their malicious acts while (a) the relevant personnel are busy elsewhere and (b) locals have a more difficult time contacting emergency services due to a lack of cell coverage.

The cell networks probably went down on their own when people started overloading the system with calls to Boston, not much different from the minor earthquake we had when most cell service went down as everyone decided to call each other on the east coast.

Cell phones have been used to detonate explosives and I imagine there is a SOP that involves shutting down cell service to prevent further detonations if it's suspected that caused it. First responders typically are using a (hopefully encrypted) radio system to coordinate their efforts anyways so the shutdown won't affect them.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

So, someone calls in a cell-triggered bomb threat over here, thus summoning a large percentage of the local authorities and first responders. They then go over there and perform their malicious acts while (a) the relevant personnel are busy elsewhere and (b) locals have a more difficult time contacting emergency services due to a lack of cell coverage.

Of course, all hypothetical.

This is a good point, and I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but...

If you're bothering to call in a threat in the first place, it does imply something different (to my mind, a sort of courtesy) than simply not calling in a threat. In the latter case, it seems to me it wouldn't matter as that implies the terrorist is actively looking to do harm regardless and no call would pretty much be just as effective as a misleading one.

I seem to recall (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the IRA would frequently phone in threats - plausible ones - to give police time to clear an area of innocents before a bomb would go off and win people over to their side. I believe some of the Spanish separatist groups did the same?

On the other hand, it's just as easy to guess the location (or a few of the more likely places) to which the police will shepherd the innocents (doubly so if you care to have a few dry runs), and have a non-cell bomb set to go off there. If cell coverage is off, someone who happens to notice the suspicious package would have a much more difficult time notifying the police than if coverage were available.

Of course, we could go back and forth with hypotheticals all day. I think the point is that, at the end of the day, there's no way to tell in the moment whether the potential benefits of an intentional cell phone interruption will outweigh the potential pitfalls.

Much as I hate these old chestnuts...

... what would the public's reaction be if a grandmother couldn't call for help when she's fallen, and she can't get up?

... or if she can't call the ambulance when her 4-year-old granddaughter starts choking, or trips and cracks her head open?

... or a teacher on a field trip sees a kid going into anaphylaxis?

... or a clinically depressed parent commits suicide, believing the worst about their child in the area?

There are also constitutional/legal questions that come up: does that qualify as being found guilty before a trial, or an illegal suppression of 1st ammendment rights, or even just illegal interference in a contract (which, would the carriers be open to lawsuits?)?

As a nation, the US has placed an extremely high value on the ability to communicate, free from governmental interference; shutting down the primary method of communication - whatever the reason - must be viewed with the highest degree of suspicion.

I don't think it's fair to say anyone has egg on their face - nearly every media outlet and several officials (erroneously) reported that cell phone service was intentionally deactivated. There is no shame in how the AP handled reporting a chaotic situation.

I don't think it's fair to say anyone has egg on their face - nearly every media outlet and several officials (erroneously) reported that cell phone service was intentionally deactivated. There is no shame in how the AP handled reporting a chaotic situation.

I would say there is. That they considered that getting a story out without fact checking the details first shows just how terrible "journalism" has become. They could have simply left the bit about cellular networks out until they actually knew what was going on instead of guessing.

Anybody that has been in or at least reported on this sort of disaster (natural or man made) in recent times knows that the cell phone networks are either going to be flaky or non-existent due to load. The Christchurch earthquake in NZ is a perfect example of that - nothing worked properly except sat phones and emergency service radios.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

So, someone calls in a cell-triggered bomb threat over here, thus summoning a large percentage of the local authorities and first responders. They then go over there and perform their malicious acts while (a) the relevant personnel are busy elsewhere and (b) locals have a more difficult time contacting emergency services due to a lack of cell coverage.

Of course, all hypothetical.

This is a good point, and I'm speaking from a place of ignorance but...

If you're bothering to call in a threat in the first place, it does imply something different (to my mind, a sort of courtesy) than simply not calling in a threat. In the latter case, it seems to me it wouldn't matter as that implies the terrorist is actively looking to do harm regardless and no call would pretty much be just as effective as a misleading one.

I seem to recall (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the IRA would frequently phone in threats - plausible ones - to give police time to clear an area of innocents before a bomb would go off and win people over to their side. I believe some of the Spanish separatist groups did the same?

The IRA always went for maximum casualties, I think the phonecalls just bought more potential victims (police,army) into the vicinity of the detonation.A bit off topic, but Im always haunted by that image of a father and young kid standing right next to a car bomb in Enniskillen (I think), the picture was snapped fractions of a second before the detonation. There was nothing noble about what the IRA did, they murdered countless innocent civillians, utter bastards.

The IRA always went for maximum casualties, I think the phonecalls just bought more potential victims (police,army) into the vicinity of the detonation.A bit off topic, but Im always haunted by that image of a father and young kid standing right next to a car bomb in Enniskillen (I think), the picture was snapped fractions of a second before the detonation. There was nothing noble about what the IRA did, they murdered countless innocent civillians, utter bastards.

There is never, ever anything noble about murdering civilians. Ever. In the history of ever. I'm sure there is a scholar somewhere that will disagree with that statement, of course.

I think you may be thinking of the Omagh bombing, if it's the picture I'm thinking of. In that instance the both the adult and the child on his shoulders survived the explosion but the person who took the picture did not.

Shutting off the cell service in a target zone will only work once. That's it. Next time the terrorists will use old style two-way radios. After that, a WiFi connection. ZigBee will likely figure in somewhere in this technology continuum. Etc etc.

Or maybe it will be the LACK of a WiFi/Cell Tower/ Radio signal that will trigger the bomb. The bomb goes off when the jamming starts or when the signal drops out or drops below 0.5 micro-volts. Or when a particular commercial plays on a specific TV channel. Or somebody tickles it with a laser beam. Or somebody makes a transmission on a police radio. There are an infinite number of ways to trigger an IED.

Once the bomb goes off, the cell phone towers aren't needed anymore as a triggering device. The terrorist will tear his phone apart, flush the SIM down a toilet.

Shutting off the cell phone towers are exactly the worst thing that could be done. All you have to do is look at the video from the Boston Marathon. Hundreds of people helping injured people with nothing other than a cell phone to call in for help. The next bombing may not happen when there are a lot of the traditional "first responders" around.

BTW Boston police were not given any warning that there were bombs about to go off. So the only scenario that shutting off the phone service might make a difference is if they know WHERE to turn it off and WHEN. And that all happens after the terrorist or his assistant calls in and tells them ahead of time, when and where and HOW.

The IRA always went for maximum casualties, I think the phonecalls just bought more potential victims (police,army) into the vicinity of the detonation.A bit off topic, but Im always haunted by that image of a father and young kid standing right next to a car bomb in Enniskillen (I think), the picture was snapped fractions of a second before the detonation. There was nothing noble about what the IRA did, they murdered countless innocent civillians, utter bastards.

There is never, ever anything noble about murdering civilians. Ever. In the history of ever. I'm sure there is a scholar somewhere that will disagree with that statement, of course.

I think you may be thinking of the Omagh bombing, if it's the picture I'm thinking of. In that instance the both the adult and the child on his shoulders survived the explosion but the person who took the picture did not.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yes, your right, it was the Omagh bombing. The camera was found in the rubble. The IRA gave inacurate phone warnings about where the bomb was that resulted in the police evacuation moving people nearer to the bomb, instead of away from it, greatly increasing the death toll. 300 injured, 29 dead. Just horrible :-(

The IRA always went for maximum casualties, I think the phonecalls just bought more potential victims (police,army) into the vicinity of the detonation.A bit off topic, but Im always haunted by that image of a father and young kid standing right next to a car bomb in Enniskillen (I think), the picture was snapped fractions of a second before the detonation. There was nothing noble about what the IRA did, they murdered countless innocent civillians, utter bastards.

There is never, ever anything noble about murdering civilians. Ever. In the history of ever. I'm sure there is a scholar somewhere that will disagree with that statement, of course.

I think you may be thinking of the Omagh bombing, if it's the picture I'm thinking of. In that instance the both the adult and the child on his shoulders survived the explosion but the person who took the picture did not.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yes, your right, it was the Omagh bombing. The camera was found in the rubble. The IRA gave inacurate phone warnings about where the bomb was that resulted in the police evacuation moving people nearer to the bomb, instead of away from it, greatly increasing the death toll. 300 injured, 29 dead. Just horrible :-(

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

Which would be more than useless, as the bomb designers could easily put in a sort of dead-man's-switch which detonates when the signal is lost.

At the end of the day, all we are doing is from the armchair. When there is a crisis like this, there is chaos: conflicting information, inaccurate information, no information, and now too much information. That makes these kinds of judgement calls very difficult under the "fog of war".

Consider, the two bombs go off in rapid succession. Calls flood 911, Twitter lights up. Authorities from all levels of government are trying to figure out what happened. Was there 1 or 2 explosions? Is the immediate danger over, or is there more to come? What kind of bomb, is it a biohazard/radioactive?

There are so many questions, and the correct answers were slow in coming. Reports of a third bomb at the JFK Library. Conflicting reports whether the bombs had shrapnel in them. A "suspicious" person was tackled at the scene.

We can institute a clear policy, with clear rules and outlining clear scenario and responses. Sadly, during crisis nothing is clear. Though that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to set rules to prevent abuse in non-crisis situations (something like BART or Occupy protests), and to set some level of flexible guidance for when the worst happens.

So, someone calls in a cell-triggered bomb threat over here, thus summoning a large percentage of the local authorities and first responders. They then go over there and perform their malicious acts while (a) the relevant personnel are busy elsewhere and (b) locals have a more difficult time contacting emergency services due to a lack of cell coverage.

I don't think it's fair to say anyone has egg on their face - nearly every media outlet and several officials (erroneously) reported that cell phone service was intentionally deactivated. There is no shame in how the AP handled reporting a chaotic situation.

I would say there is. That they considered that getting a story out without fact checking the details first shows just how terrible "journalism" has become. They could have simply left the bit about cellular networks out until they actually knew what was going on instead of guessing.

Anybody that has been in or at least reported on this sort of disaster (natural or man made) in recent times knows that the cell phone networks are either going to be flaky or non-existent due to load. The Christchurch earthquake in NZ is a perfect example of that - nothing worked properly except sat phones and emergency service radios.

But that's not what this was - this was not a case of media outlets looking to be "first" with information. In fact, in cases where you have media covering breaking news, especially news of this magnitude, the idea of being first or competing with other outlets goes right out the window. It becomes a process of trying to bring order to the chaotic information that's coming in to you at a million miles per hour. Nobody "guessed" anything - its ironic because your statement itself is only a guess. Several officials told the media, live on the air as I sat and watched, that cell phone service had been disabled - how much more diligence did you expect the AP to do (or CNN, or CBS, or NBC - all of whom reported the same thing)?

Obviously the media needs to be help to standards - but those standards are determined on a macro scale. You cannot cherry pick a moment like this and hold each sentence of each reporter up and use it to define the overall quality of work done on that day.

Several commenters have decried the ability for the government (or any entity) to shut down communication services.

My two cents: all critical services and functions should have an on/off switch. There are numerous situations in which using such a kill-switch would be inappropriate, but for the situations you can't think of, you'll be glad you had it.

As for protecting and securing said switches, well, that's a different topic for another day.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

You can already blanket-disable an area with jammers. All the feds would have to do is park their truck nearby and (poof) no more cellular communications within a radius of a couple hundred to a couple thousand feet. No need to disable an entire city and paralyze the average citizens communications capabilities.

It's really no mystery how police could shut down cell service: 1. Send police officers to cell service company HQ. 2. Officers order cell service be shut down in the name of public safety. 3. Company shuts down cell service.

It's the same authority that allows the police to order someone out of their own home/business if there is a fire down the street or a barricaded gunman next door. They can essentially order anyone to do any lawful thing to keep people safe, within Constitutional restrictions.

And shutting down cell service is perfectly lawful for the company to do.

I can't think of a single scenario where public safety is improved by shutting down communications, and I can think of a lot of nefarious reasons why the government might want to

The only plausible scenario I can think of is if you get a tip that a bomb is set to go off, and said bomb is claimed to be triggered by a cell call. The ability to blanket-disable an area while you search for said bomb might be useful.

Of course, all hypothetical.

You can already blanket-disable an area with jammers. All the feds would have to do is park their truck nearby and (poof) no more cellular communications within a radius of a couple hundred to a couple thousand feet. No need to disable an entire city and paralyze the average citizens communications capabilities.

And what if there are more explosives that you don't know about? How far from the marathon was the JFK Library?